Global strike for a moneyless world

[Dimentio]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19960438519

Seems like someone is planning to start a "global strike for a moneyless world" in connection to the London Olympics. Should the worker organisations support that, or should it better be left ignored?

[Bitter Ashes]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19960438519

Seems like someone is planning to start a "global strike for a moneyless world" in connection to the London Olympics. Should the worker organisations support that, or should it better be left ignored?
Been planning it for a very long time it seems. Look at the poster dates on the wall

[mykittyhasaboner]

It will probably not turn out to be a global strike. Such a thing would be welcomed, but just unlikely.

[robbo203]

At least, at long last, a moneyless world is being more talked about. Is communism back on the agenda? :)

[BeerShaman]

:rolleyes: I belive it should be supported by workers because socialism or anarchism talk about a moneyless society. Thus, when a strike for a moneyless world is on, supporters of this idea should go. Workers should be supporters of this idea, because it will bring them the "Utopia - society". The worker's heaven!:tt1:

[Muzk]

"Utopia - society". :tt1:


Never, never, NEVER call it an utopia, because it is not, and if you take the shit liberals/reactionaries/conservatives say about communism being an utopia, you're literally saying "you're right, I live a dream"

[Axle]

It would be amazing if were were to get a global strike, but we almost certainly won't, not like this. Your average politically moderate person would have some difficulty accepting the idea of a moneyless world, or even taking it seriously.

Unfortunately I don't think this will really amount to much, if anything.

[syndicat]

It's not even clear it is a good thing. It's not clear how a viable socialist society would allot resources in social production in an effective way without some standard of measurement of benefits and costs, for social accounting purposes, and then you have prices.

The great majority of humanity probably don't see how they are going to live without money in some form. It's not likely to be obvious why the existence of money is a cause of their oppression and exploitation. If they don't see it as an evil or something they can get rid of, why would they strike to get rid of it?

Anyway, this is like proposing a general strike to abolish capitalism. A general strike in some sense is probably needed to expropriate the capitalists' assets. but this is not likely to occur til such time that the system has lost legitimacy in the eyes of huge numbers of people, probably as the result of a series of major struggles. And even then, it's not obvious why abolishing money should be a central task at that point.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

A moneyless world, sorry folks, is in my view not achievable, and not something Communist should immediately strive towards. The wealth should be equally divided, not abolished.

[robbo203]

A moneyless world, sorry folks, is in my view not achievable, and not something Communist should immediately strive towards. The wealth should be equally divided, not abolished.


If a moneyless communist world were unachievable then how much more unachievable is a egalitarian capitalist world?

[cyu]

A moneyless world, sorry folks, is in my view not achievable


Economic equality could be a stepping stone to elimination of the need for money. See Equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work)

[robbo203]

Economic equality could be a stepping stone to elimination of the need for money. See Equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work)


How so? And in any case how can you possibly achieve economic equality in capitalism in which the means of production are owned by a small minority. It is this class ownership that is the ultimate source of economic inequality. If you got rid of that you would have got rid of capitalism (by making the means of production the common property of everyone). And getting rid of capitalism means amongst other things getting rid of money!

So it would seem that the demand for economic equality is inextricably linked with the need to get rid of money

[syndicat]

And getting rid of capitalism means amongst other things getting rid of money!


I don't see it that way. You have a form of money if you have a way of evaluating the benefits and costs to humans from various alternative proposals for production, where these are placed on a common scale. But this doesn't have to be benefits mediated by market exchange. To put it another way, a worker-managed economy where land and means of production are owned by everyone, could still have a price system.

What would have to be eliminated is money-capital. But money is capital only in the context of certain set of social relations. Capital is the power to go out into markets for "factors of production" and hire laborers, managers, experts, rent or buy land, buildings, equipment, and then claim the revenue from sale of commodities on consumer or producer markets.

But there could be prices within a socialized economy without markets, and thus no money-capital.

[cyu]

How so? And in any case how can you possibly achieve economic equality in capitalism in which the means of production are owned by a small minority.


You don't. It's explained in the link: http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work

Here's the relevant excerpt: "1. Promote democracy in the workplace (http://www.everything2.com/title/anarcho-syndicalism)"



If you got rid of that you would have got rid of capitalism (by making the means of production the common property of everyone). And getting rid of capitalism means amongst other things getting rid of money!



Not necessarily - even if everyone had a say in control of the company, they still may vote for differentiated pay, based on some measure of performance (say, number of widgets produced per week, number of people who regularly come to you for advice, or number of votes from each of your peers). While this would be a policy I'd work against, it's still possible that you'd have economic inequality, even without anyone playing the role of the capitalist.

[Pawn Power]

Meh, looks like just some small intenet campaign with no goals of stratagy.

[robbo203]

Meh, looks like just some small intenet campaign with no goals of stratagy.

Maybe. Maybe not. Why dont you find out for yourself? One website I know of is http://money-free.ning.com/ (http://money-free.ning.com/)

The good thing about it, though, is that it is at least publicising the idea of genuine alternative to capitalism. How many leftists can claim to be doing the same?

[Drace]

361 members.
If each one is from a different country, I guess we can call it a global strike

[anticap]

I'm bewildered to find skepticism of the idea of a moneyless world on a site for "revolutionary leftists," which to my mind is a euphemism for "communists," as I understand it. As such, I'd have assumed we'd all be in favor of a moneyless world. Every justification for money that I've ever seen has been riddled with fail.

P.S. Robbo, the sentiment you've expressed above is the one I was trying to express in our other exchange. :) Achieving publicity for the idea that capitalism may not be the glorious synonym for freedom and prosperity that its High Priests proclaim it to be, is always a positive thing, however flawed the presentation, because it plants a necessary seed of doubt in people's minds.

[robbo203]

361 members.
If each one is from a different country, I guess we can call it a global strike

One of the problems is that I am not quite sure who precisely is organising this thing. Thats something Ive been trying to find out. The site I posted is one that I know sponsors this project but Ive come across others that seem to support it. It doesnt seem to be the responsibility of any one organisation - although I may be quite wrong here - which may be a strength or a weakness.

The point is, though, it is providing the oxegyn of publicity for what surely lies at the very heart of our revolutionary aspiration - namely, the concept of a moneyless world. This is what socialism is about afterall and it is a bit puzzling the rather negative reception the project is getting from some quarters. I think the way in which the project is being presented leaves much to be desired but I cant fault the core sentiment that lies at its heart.

Probably the best thing to do is to just get involved and make contacts with these people as well as provide some input as to how to make the project more effective. I believe that there may be a number of other organisations involved such as Zeitgeist movement and the Venus project to name just two. Indeed the Zeitgeist movement according to Wikipedia "as of December 26, 2009, (has) claimed to have approximately 377,000 members" Thats a figure not to be sniffed at and certainly a lot more than 361 you cite. I wonder how many left wing organisations can claim to have that many members. The Zeitgeist movement as Wikipedia puts it "is a worldwide grassroots movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots_movement) advocating social change, most significantly that of society transitioning from a monetary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary) based economy to a resource-based economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-based_economy)."

And Anticap , yes I take your point although I dont think the comparsion is quite the same. But yes one does need to tailor one's approach according to the person you are talking to . Planting a necessary seed of doubt in people's minds is indeed useful so long as we dont get carried away with it ;). That applies to the worldstrike project as well

[syndicat]

I'm bewildered to find skepticism of the idea of a moneyless world on a site for "revolutionary leftists," which to my mind is a euphemism for "communists," as I understand it. As such, I'd have assumed we'd all be in favor of a moneyless world. Every justification for money that I've ever seen has been riddled with fail.


you need to distinguish between money as capital and money as prices as a form of social accounting, evaluting costs and benefits on a common scale in the context of a commonly owned system of social production.

eliminating prices that encapsulate costs and benefits would only ensure that a socialized economy would be unaccountable and unable to meet people's desires.

I would throw the issue back in your lap, Why do you think getting rid of money (and thus a price system) is necessary for liberation of the working class from oppression and exploitation?

[robbo203]

you need to distinguish between money as capital and money as prices as a form of social accounting, evaluting costs and benefits on a common scale in the context of a commonly owned system of social production.

eliminating prices that encapsulate costs and benefits would only ensure that a socialized economy would be unaccountable and unable to meet people's desires.

I would throw the issue back in your lap, Why do you think getting rid of money (and thus a price system) is necessary for liberation of the working class from oppression and exploitation?


I dont agree with your claim at all, Syndicat, and it seems to me that you have succumbed to false logic of the Misesians. However, this is a big subject and rather than get bogged down with it at this juncture let me just provide you with a link http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm


On another question, regarding the worldstrike 2012 people, Ive made various enquiries and it appears to me that there is not a great deal of central coordination involved. You are more or less invited to do your own thing as far as promoting the idea is concened. This may or may not be a good idea but there you are. So its really up to you to promote the idea however you see fit through the media and elsewhere. There is still 2 1/2 years before the "strike" takes place but as far as I am concerned its major benefit will be symbolic rather than practical - it will help to bring into focus a communist alternative to the capitalist money system. Which is why I would be quite happy to spread the word

[ls]

Interesting enough concept if it gained momentum I suppose, unfortunately it's very splintered between unconnected groups with small numbers so it looks quite unlikely, but who knows in the future, it could be quite a good idea.

[rednordman]

You know this title makes me laugh, because if you where to put it across to right-wingers, they worship money so much, that they automatically equate a moneyless world, with a poor one. They simply would not understand the message that there are other ways of organising life and society that can be done without capital. What they really need to get a hang of is that with out the logics of capitalism, rich and poor would not technically exist.

[Dimentio]

A moneyless world, sorry folks, is in my view not achievable, and not something Communist should immediately strive towards. The wealth should be equally divided, not abolished.

Money isn't wealth in itself. Money is merely a medium to define wealth. What people want isn't the money, but what money could buy them. Resources existed before money, they will exist after money as well.

[robbo203]

Interesting enough concept if it gained momentum I suppose, unfortunately it's very splintered between unconnected groups with small numbers so it looks quite unlikely, but who knows in the future, it could be quite a good idea.


Well, I dont know. The Zeitgeist movement, I was astonished to discover recently, has 377,000 members and is apparently growing rapidly Thats big in anyone's terms. It wants a moneyless society. I know there are a number of odd ideas that it circulates but the central idea of a moneyless society which is what comunism or socialism would entail is hardly that.

Ideas never really spread in steady arithmetical fashion. They take off and expand exponentially or else stagnate and wither. I think this may well be an idea whose time has come but it is up to individuals to take responsibility to push it up the political agenda

[ls]

Well, I dont know. The Zeitgeist movement, I was astonished to discover recently, has 377,000 members and is apparently growing rapidly Thats big in anyone's terms. It wants a moneyless society. I know there are a number of odd ideas that it circulates but the central idea of a moneyless society which is what comunism or socialism would entail is hardly that.

Ideas never really spread in steady arithmetical fashion. They take off and expand exponentially or else stagnate and wither. I think this may well be an idea whose time has come but it is up to individuals to take responsibility to push it up the political agenda

That and the Venus project do not seem revolutionary to any extent to me, both advocate activism "for a better world", but what does that actually entail? Revolution or what?

[Technocrat]

The abolition of money is necessary if an abundance is to be distributed to each individual. Money is based upon scarcity values which disappear in a condition of abundance. The Price System is a system that algorithmically guarantees that some people will be forced to go without. A Price System is any system employing debt tokens (money) as a means of exchange, whether it be communist, capitalist, fascist, or whatever.

More info can be found here:

http://www.technocracy.org

Technocracy, Inc. was the originator of these ideas which have since been used by other groups like the Zietgiest Project and the Venus Project. Technocracy, Inc remains the best source for information on a moneyless, post-scarcity society.

[robbo203]

That and the Venus project do not seem revolutionary to any extent to me, both advocate activism "for a better world", but what does that actually entail? Revolution or what?

Yes sure there are criticisms that can be made of the Zeitgeist Movement and it is often quite vague on the details as you suggest. However, this should not distract from the central point. In advocating a moneyless society, it is saying something that captures something of the very essence of what a communist society is about. Saying you want to get rid of money is qualitatively different from saying you want to get rid of poverty or war or whatever, in that respect.


My feeling is that for all the lack of coordination and vagueness of this worldstrike 2012 for a moneyless world, this is something which we as individuals should help to reinforce and promote. If you are seriously interested in a communist alternative to capitalism this is not going to do you any harm and on the contrary may well do a lot of good

[robbo203]

The abolition of money is necessary if an abundance is to be distributed to each individual. Money is based upon scarcity values which disappear in a condition of abundance. The Price System is a system that algorithmically guarantees that some people will be forced to go without. A Price System is any system employing debt tokens (money) as a means of exchange, whether it be communist, capitalist, fascist, or whatever.

More info can be found here:

http://www.technocracy.org

Technocracy, Inc. was the originator of these ideas which have since been used by other groups like the Zietgiest Project and the Venus Project. Technocracy, Inc remains the best source for information on a moneyless, post-scarcity society.

Technocrat, which particular article on the technocracy.org website can you recommed which demonstrates that "The Price System is a system that algorithmically guarantees that some people will be forced to go without"

Incidentally, you say Technocracy remains the best source for information on a moneyless, post scarcity society. Well, there is a very good pamphlet produced by the WSM which rivals any Ive encountered . Try it
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/saapa.pdf

[Technocrat]

Technocrat, which particular article on the technocracy.org website can you recommed which demonstrates that "The Price System is a system that algorithmically guarantees that some people will be forced to go without"

It seems they are in the midst of re-organizing that website, so I'm having trouble finding the exact article I was thinking of. I'll keep digging around for it, but the basic gist of it is this: the value of money is utterly dependent upon scarcity values. Market prices exist purely to define the opportunity costs in a situation of scarcity; such as whether to buy good A or good B. In a situation of abundance, everyone can have as much of both A and B that they are physically capable of consuming, which means that there are no opportunity costs in a situation of abundance. This means there can be no market prices and therefore, no money. If something is abundant, it becomes impossible to charge for it: the only reason our capitalist overlords do not charge us for the very air we breathe is because they have not yet found a way to enforce such a monopoly.

If we attempt to continue using money is a situation where we could potentially have an abundance, the use of money will lead to artificial scarcities and untold waste of resources: https://www.adbusters.org/category/tags/obsolescence

In addition to the above, money has the following problems: as debt, it encourages the physical growth of the economy - this indefinite, continual growth is guaranteed by the laws of thermodynamics to cause our eventual collapse since the earth is a finite sphere with limited resources on it. Since money can be traded between individuals, it can be hoarded, allowing some individuals to buy a controlling share in the social mechanism itself, which would defeat socialism and/or technocracy and bring us right back to a Price System. Since money is not a physical measurement of anything, there is no guarantee that the money issued in a given year will be adequate to buy all that is produced that year, leading to either scarcity or waste and economic oscillations. Money can also be saved, which contributes to both the problems of inadequate purchasing power and corruption. For all of these reasons, Technocracy suggests eliminating money and switching to a form of resource-based economy using Energy Accounting.

All of these aspects of money point to the fact that The Price System is a system designed to protect the interests of those who have the most money. The Price System itself needs to be eliminated.


Incidentally, you say Technocracy remains the best source for information on a moneyless, post scarcity society. Well, there is a very good pamphlet produced by the WSM which rivals any Ive encountered . Try it
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/saapa.pdfI'll look into that. In the mean time, you may be interested in the following:

http://chitra-bhanu.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=1&orderby=ratingD

There are several good articles here, the first one does a decent job explaining the inadequacies of money, the second "Technocracy's Technological Continental Design" is an updated and abbreviated version of their 300+ page Study Course. It is around 75 pages long.

[Wanted Man]

Seeing is believing. Indeed, anyone can announce a "strike" for anything, especially when you give yourself a leeway of 2 years. You can try it right now: announce a "Global Strike for Free Hugs for All in 2012" on a social networking site, and you'll probably get much more than 367 friends. Tell you what. If this "global strike" actually materialises in my country, if it has any significance whatsoever, then I will change my name to "Dumbass" for a month. Hey, I did it before, so why not? We'll talk in 2 years.

As for "The Zeitgeist Movement" and their 377,000 members, well, I got a good laugh out of that. Do you know how you can become a member of The Zeitgeist Movement? Why, it's quite simple: you only need to enter your e-mail address on their website and receive newsletters. In fact, I just became a member, supposedly making me one of 4,469 Zeitgeisters in this country.

4,469. The smallest party in the Dutch parliament, the Party for Animals (seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Animals) has over 8,000 members alone. These numbers mean very little, because the Party for Animals is utterly irrelevant, despite their parliamentary representation. Even tiny sects with a few dozen members are more visible, because they expect their members to be active, not just e-mail addresses on a list. But even if numbers mattered, "TZGM" would still fare poorly. Anyway, strangely enough, I never see any Zeitgeisters in real life. Being politically active seems to involve more than simply making the mistake of signing up for the mailing list of some conspiracist website and receiving their newsletters.

So if the Dutch participation in the "global strike" will consist of the legions of Zeitgeisters who merely signed up online, I'm afraid the bosses aren't worried yet. :( Right now, a localised union strike would be more worrying to them. So yeah. I think I'll stay active for the union, rather than for The Zeitgeist Movement. Sorry.

But fret not: The Zeitgeist Movement also has 63 members in North Korea! Given the amount of internet penetration in that country, it seems that the DPRK's top-level government has also finally seen the future. ;)

[ls]

Seeing is believing. Indeed, anyone can announce a "strike" for anything, especially when you give yourself a leeway of 2 years. You can try it right now: announce a "Global Strike for Free Hugs for All in 2012" on a social networking site, and you'll probably get much more than 367 friends. Tell you what. If this "global strike" actually materialises in my country, if it has any significance whatsoever, then I will change my name to "Dumbass" for a month. Hey, I did it before, so why not? We'll talk in 2 years.

As for "The Zeitgeist Movement" and their 377,000 members, well, I got a good laugh out of that. Do you know how you can become a member of The Zeitgeist Movement? Why, it's quite simple: you only need to enter your e-mail address on their website and receive newsletters. In fact, I just became a member, supposedly making me one of 4,469 Zeitgeisters in this country.

4,469. The smallest party in the Dutch parliament, the Party for Animals (seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Animals) has over 8,000 members alone. These numbers mean very little, because the Party for Animals is utterly irrelevant, despite their parliamentary representation. Even tiny sects with a few dozen members are more visible, because they expect their members to be active, not just e-mail addresses on a list. But even if numbers mattered, "TZGM" would still fare poorly. Anyway, strangely enough, I never see any Zeitgeisters in real life. Being politically active seems to involve more than simply making the mistake of signing up for the mailing list of some conspiracist website and receiving their newsletters.

So if the Dutch participation in the "global strike" will consist of the legions of Zeitgeisters who merely signed up online, I'm afraid the bosses aren't worried yet. :( Right now, a localised union strike would be more worrying to them. So yeah. I think I'll stay active for the union, rather than for The Zeitgeist Movement. Sorry.

But fret not: The Zeitgeist Movement also has 63 members in North Korea! Given the amount of internet penetration in that country, it seems that the DPRK's top-level government has also finally seen the future. ;)

Err, it does say join but somehow I doubt the title "subscribe to our newsletters" on the page that appears subsequently after sending them your email is considered "joining", at least, it seems pretty highly unlikely.

[robbo203]

Seeing is believing. Indeed, anyone can announce a "strike" for anything, especially when you give yourself a leeway of 2 years. You can try it right now: announce a "Global Strike for Free Hugs for All in 2012" on a social networking site, and you'll probably get much more than 367 friends. Tell you what. If this "global strike" actually materialises in my country, if it has any significance whatsoever, then I will change my name to "Dumbass" for a month. Hey, I did it before, so why not? We'll talk in 2 years.

As for "The Zeitgeist Movement" and their 377,000 members, well, I got a good laugh out of that. Do you know how you can become a member of The Zeitgeist Movement? Why, it's quite simple: you only need to enter your e-mail address on their website and receive newsletters. In fact, I just became a member, supposedly making me one of 4,469 Zeitgeisters in this country.

4,469. The smallest party in the Dutch parliament, the Party for Animals (seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Animals) has over 8,000 members alone. These numbers mean very little, because the Party for Animals is utterly irrelevant, despite their parliamentary representation. Even tiny sects with a few dozen members are more visible, because they expect their members to be active, not just e-mail addresses on a list. But even if numbers mattered, "TZGM" would still fare poorly. Anyway, strangely enough, I never see any Zeitgeisters in real life. Being politically active seems to involve more than simply making the mistake of signing up for the mailing list of some conspiracist website and receiving their newsletters.

So if the Dutch participation in the "global strike" will consist of the legions of Zeitgeisters who merely signed up online, I'm afraid the bosses aren't worried yet. :( Right now, a localised union strike would be more worrying to them. So yeah. I think I'll stay active for the union, rather than for The Zeitgeist Movement. Sorry.

But fret not: The Zeitgeist Movement also has 63 members in North Korea! Given the amount of internet penetration in that country, it seems that the DPRK's top-level government has also finally seen the future. ;)


Of course, its pretty easy to be cynical and to come up with all sorts of highly plausible and clever reasons to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. I too can think of reasons for being cynical besides the ones you have given. No doubt its all very comforting not to have to look beyond this kind of black-or-white perspective. Ill stick with my union and never mind zeitgeist. Like you cant possibly do the two things together.

See, one thing I will say about organisations like Zeitgeist and so on is that they are saying something which, as I said, before captures something of what the revolutionary project is about that no amount of well meaning reformist movements can ever do. There is something qualitatively different between saying "I want to get rid of money" and "I want to get rid of poverty (or war or whatever)". Inadvertently or not, Zeitgeisters have struck upon something that is part of the case for genuine communism. Thats refeshingly different.

OK I dont know much about the validity of their membership numbers and wouldnt know if what you say about how to join them is correct. But, even if membership meant just clicking a button to receive a newsletter it would still be of some interest insofar as we are talking about an organisation that wants to promote the idea of a moneyless society. People would be receiving information on a regular basis through the newletters about a moneyless alternative to capitalism. Cant complain about that.

Its the same with this worldstrike thing. I think the logistics of it all are pretty vague and sloppy but then, on the other hand, as far as I can tell the people who initiated the idea seem to look upon it as a DIY thing. In other words, it is up to you to make of it what you will. There is no central coordinating body, as far as I understand it, running things.

The important thing is what it is focussing upon - the very idea of a world without money. That makes it , dare I say, rather different and something worth supporting from a communist perspective even if it is and can only be a publicity stunt in the end. Capitalism is not going to be brought to its knees by a strike. However, publicity stunts in favour of something so communistic as the abolition of money are far and few between

[The Vegan Marxist]

This should be a stepping stone towards a resource-based communist world. The only problem I've ever had with communist ideals, which applies to every other ideology as well, is that money is still used as a benefactor, rather than what it truly is, a distraction element used to put limitation to, not only the proletarians, but of the entire populace. This kind of world is absolutely achievable, & should be brought forth in the discussion more often. To understand this concept, I would highly recommend everyone to read about Jacque Fresco & his Venus Project.

[Technocrat]

This should be a stepping stone towards a resource-based communist world. The only problem I've ever had with communist ideals, which applies to every other ideology as well, is that money is still used as a benefactor, rather than what it truly is, a distraction element used to put limitation to, not only the proletarians, but of the entire populace. This kind of world is absolutely achievable, & should be brought forth in the discussion more often. To understand this concept, I would highly recommend everyone to read about Jacque Fresco & his Venus Project.

Jacques Fresco is alright, but the Venus Project is more style than substance. Jacques Fresco was a member of Technocracy, Inc. before he left to start the Venus Project and got most of his ideas from there. Just thought I would alert people to this in case they wanted to trace these ideas back to their actual source.

[gorillafuck]

Has there ever been a technocracy group that has gained any sort of prominence anywhere? I had no idea that there was even anything called technocracy before I joined this site.

[Technocrat]

Has there ever been a technocracy group that has gained any sort of prominence anywhere? I had no idea that there was even anything called technocracy before I joined this site.

Technocracy, Inc. was prominent during the Great Depression:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Big_Technocracy_Event.jpg

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is true, but the reason Jacque Fresco left Technocracy, Inc., as he has stated plenty of times, because of their lack of diversity within the corporation. He complained to them how they weren't allowing any blacks with them, so he left because he saw them as going nowhere. And that's when he started his own ideals through the Venus Project. He only adopted some of the ideas of Technocracy, Inc., just like how he adopted ideas off of Marxism & ideas of Peter Kropotkin.

[revolution inaction]

This should be a stepping stone towards a resource-based communist world. The only problem I've ever had with communist ideals, which applies to every other ideology as well, is that money is still used as a benefactor,
what are you talking about? there is no money in communism.

[Dimentio]

This is true, but the reason Jacque Fresco left Technocracy, Inc., as he has stated plenty of times, because of their lack of diversity within the corporation. He complained to them how they weren't allowing any blacks with them, so he left because he saw them as going nowhere. And that's when he started his own ideals through the Venus Project. He only adopted some of the ideas of Technocracy, Inc., just like how he adopted ideas off of Marxism & ideas of Peter Kropotkin.

NET is starting to get steam in Europe by the way ^^

[Technocrat]

This is true, but the reason Jacque Fresco left Technocracy, Inc., as he has stated plenty of times, because of their lack of diversity within the corporation. He complained to them how they weren't allowing any blacks with them, so he left because he saw them as going nowhere. And that's when he started his own ideals through the Venus Project. He only adopted some of the ideas of Technocracy, Inc., just like how he adopted ideas off of Marxism & ideas of Peter Kropotkin.

That's pretty weird he would say that. Technocracy was very popular with several labor unions of which I'm sure blacks were a significant percentage.

The Venus Project is good at making pretty little models of futuristic looking things, but how useful is that really? We won't know the final design of all these things until the time comes to build them, so it seems pretty pointless to invest so much effort into image. Then again, image is what attracts people so I suppose Technocracy, Inc. could stand to learn a thing or two from TVP.

[Dimentio]

That's pretty weird he would say that. Technocracy was very popular with several labor unions of which I'm sure blacks were a significant percentage.

The Venus Project is good at making pretty little models of futuristic looking things, but how useful is that really? We won't know the final design of all these things until the time comes to build them, so it seems pretty pointless to invest so much effort into image. Then again, image is what attracts people so I suppose Technocracy, Inc. could stand to learn a thing or two from TVP.

That is actually wrong. The Venus Project is more than a little futuristic-looking images. Apparently, Jacque has invested a lot of time drawing models which - working or not - are derived on actual engineering ideas.

The main problem with the Venus Project - apart from being utopian - is that Jacque Fresco seems to be too dominating. But to have a dominant figure who is living surely beats having a dominant figure who is dead.